[Bug 225670] Merge Review: cups

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225670

--- Comment #3 from Adam Tkac <atkac at redhat.com> 2010-01-14 06:14:41 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I asked upstream whether they would change the default to be /usr/libexec, and
> the answer was that it was not sufficiently standard for them.  As there are
> plenty of 3rd party CUPS packages, and they need to know where to put their
> binaries, we deliberately stick to the upstream path for this to avoid
> incompatibilities.

OK, I'm not going to block review due this.

> 
> As for the -fstack-protector-all flag: are you sure -fstack-protector is
> sufficient?  It seems to offer less security.  The versioned gcc requirement is
> for -fstack-protector-all.

Well, -fstack-protector is less secure than -fstack-protector-all but -all
causes bigger overhead. It is choice between security and performace. No stack
protector means the best performace but the worst security and oppositely. Vast
majority of network daemons in Fedora are compiled with -fstack-protector but
if you prefer stack-protector-all, use it.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.